The Reconnection of Rough Sleepers within the UK: rhetoric, policy and practice

Prof Sarah Johnsen (Heriot-Watt University)

&

Dr Anwen Jones (University of York)

Reconnection is…

“…the process by which people sleeping rough, who have a connection to another area where they can access accommodation and/or social, family and support networks, are supported to return to this area in a planned way.”

(Homeless Link, 2014, p.3)

Key definitions

Places reconnected from/to: Identifying = where targeted for intervention / connected

from Recipient = where connected to (i.e. ‘home’)

Distances involved: International = reconnected abroad Domestic = reconnected within UK

Methods

National key stakeholder interviews (n=6) Evaluation of schemes in 4 areas: ‘London Borough’,

‘Eastern City’, ‘Northern City’ and ‘Seaside Town’ Each case study involved:

Review of policy/strategy documents Collation of relevant statistics Focus groups and interviews with frontline workers (n=31) Interviews with rough sleepers targeted for/ experience of

reconnection (n=44 individuals / 49 interviews)

Reconnection Policy:a brief history

Originated in Westminster in mid 2000s

Pan-London protocol (London Councils, 2006)

CLG outline framework ‘Getting Connected…’ (CLG, 2006)

Homeless Link Toolkit (updated 2014)

Reconnection ‘Drivers’

Resource constraints in areas with high rough sleeper numbers

Prerogative to make other LAs ‘take responsibility for their own’

Intervening before rough sleepers become established in a street lifestyle

Belief that outcomes will be better in an area where they have social capital / access to resources etc.

What Does Existing Data Tell Us?

Not much! Data extremely limited (except in London) Outside London, domestic reconnections

(sometimes/always??) out-number international; in London, domestic reconnections are the minority

Extremely limited data on outcomes

Outcomes

Source: CHAIN. Base 3753 (701 UK outside London; 1406 within London; 1646 outside UK).

Reconnection is an Umbrella Term used in Reference to…

1. Reconnection (‘proper’) - supported return to place with verified connection, often involving negotiation with agencies/ authorities in recipient area

2. Diversion – encouraging/supporting rough sleeper to access services elsewhere, where they do not have an established connection

3. Deflection – rough sleeper informed that cannot access services in identifying area and must/should return; no formal assessment of needs nor attempt to signpost/broker access to support

Defining and Assessing Connections

General understandings of term: history of settled residence / sustained employment presence of family history of using support services

In practice, when identifying/assessing connections, almost always restricted to ‘local connection’ as defined in Homelessness Code of Guidance (Annex 18) Some areas accord greater weighting to particular criterion (e.g.

where lived for 6 out of last 12 months = ‘trumps’) Where consider ‘home’ given little consideration

Techniques

Emphasising discomfort/dangers associated with street lifestyles and benefits of being ‘home’ close to family/friends

Denying non-compliers access to LA funded TA or other BBS

Provision of support (extent varies greatly)

Intensive brokering of positive response / accompany RS

‘Told to go home’ / advised to contact LA in recipient area

Rough Sleeper Receptivity

‘Willing compliers’ outnumbered by resisters ‘Game of chicken’ – until reconnector or reconnectee

capitulates, i.e.: Rough sleeper complies, ‘disappears’ or ‘digs heels in’ Reconnecting agency typically holds ground until

health/wellbeing visibly deteriorates when ‘give in’

Response Trajectories

Comply, move to and remain in recipient area Comply, move to recipient area, but return Refuse and remain on streets in identifying area Refuse and make alternative arrangements

independently

Limits and Risks

Denial of essential services to people without any LC (e.g. living abroad 3+ years)

Uncertainty regarding legitimacy/severity of risk in recipient areas

Inadequate service responses in recipient areas Potential for increasing resistance to support Weak / non-existent social support networks in

recipient areas

Conclusions - 1

We still don’t know what proportion of reconnections ‘work’; evidence base still very weak

Disjuncture between recognised good practice and how often implemented ‘on the ground’

Some practices deviate from core principles/ intentions of national guidance

Conclusions - 2

Tensions and ethical quandaries, esp. acute when employed as single service offer: Erroneous presumption that RSs have positive support

networks in last place of residence Rigid prioritisation of last place of normal residence in LC

assessments (overlooking legitimate connections elsewhere)

Denial of services to those with no LC

Implications re further ‘raising of drawbridges’?

Download the Final Report from…

www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Reconnections_FINAL_web.pdf